Marlo Hulnick

2016

Notecards

Black Soldiers in the Revolutionary War

Marlo Hulnick

Source:

Ciment, James. “Black Patriots during the Revolutionary War.” African-American History Online , by Ciment, Rev. ed., Facts on File, 2007. Facts on File , www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp? ItemID=WE01&iPin=ATAF039&SingleRecord=True.

URL:

http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp? ItemID=WE01&iPin=ATAF039&SingleRecord=True

Quote:

“When war between the colonists and Britain finally began in April 1775, African Americans—at least, the small proportion not enslaved—were faced with a dilemma: fight alongside their fellow colonists who denied them full membership in society or side with the British. In fact, black colonists had a long tradition of military service by 1775, having served as militia men in various colonial wars fought between Britain and its European rivals, France, Holland, and Spain, as well as in numberless skirmishes with Native Americans. Even slaves fought, occasionally winning their freedom in the bargain. At the same time, free blacks and runaway slaves signed up for naval duty, usually aboard independent privateers. Unlike the militia—where they were generally relegated to support positions—the privateers offered black sailors near equality of pay, while the camaraderie of close-quarter shipboard life eliminated segregation and undermined white racist attitudes.”

Paraphrase:

When the Revolutionary War started the free blacks had two choices; fight with the colonists who declined them as a member of society, or fight with the British. By this point in time, the African’s had fought in many wars. Sometimes slaves bargained for freedom if they fought, and also free blacks and runaway slaves joined the naval duty and worked aboard independent privateers. When they worked with independent people, unlike the militia, they usually had the same positions as whites and got close to equal pay.

My Ideas:

I can infer that more African’s chose to be with independent privateers because they got close to equal rights and close to equal pay. That was unusual for that time period because African’s were treated as dehumanized animals. These stereotypical things have gone down since then but still occur today. If it is bad now, how bad could it have been then? Slaves took the desperate and unthinkable measures to be let out of slavery, joining the British. The British guaranteed their freedom if they fought for them. One reason free blacks and runaways usually went to serve on independent privateers was because it was much more fair for the Africans. The privateers got to choose how much they paid their crew, and they weren’t nearly as racist as the military.

History:

Created: 10/31/2016 07:44 PM

 

William (Gus) A. Dotson                                                                                                        2016

I think it is cool how a lot of the artillery that was used in the colonial era is the original for of some weapon that we still have today. Some of the weapons are still that same and are just more powerful and accurate. I wonder what the of artillery was most common. I suspect that it was the field cannon because most of the battles were fought on open ground so they wouldn’t need a mortar or howitzer because there were few forts and because there were few forts then a garrison cannon was not needed much. I wonder how the cannon operators would transport the cannons because I suspect that they wouldn’t just drag them by hand. I wonder if mortars were ever used on ships because then you could take out another ship by blowing it up. I also wonder what the difference between the howitzer and the mortar is because they seem to do the same exact thing. They both launch a bomb over a long distance.

 

Spencer                                                                                                                                           2015

Battle Tactics of Colonial Armies

“The battle tactics used in battle were mostly linear in the main battle field you had soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder all firing together, they’re told by there officers when to do so, but by doing this they were much more effective. The most important thing to do in linear tactics is to try to flank your enemy. People with rifles would fight in gorilla warfare. You would have an infantry, people you send in to the woods and trees to a scout to basically harass the enemy. Gorilla tactics I’m the revolutionary war was used for small scale conflicts. The Americans won the war because they got better at linear tactics then the British. The reason why the Native Americans got wiped out was not because there weapons were better or worse, but because there were to many English to fight. Linear tactics have been around since medieval times. Linear tactics work by having the first row fire and begin to reaload, and then have the second line fire over there soldiers. Ranks were done by height, shorter people in front taller in back. Artillerary was used to break up lines, if there are people marching from 1000 yards away you can’t hit them with muskets, so instead you would fire a 3 pound cannon ball that would break up there lines. It might only hit 2 or 3  people, but imagine the physiological damage it would cause to the person next to them, they just saw someone they know disappear and there job was to fill in there hole this made some men run away. If the army gets within 300 yards they would switch to canister or grape shots it is similar to  shotgun shell, it stars hitting more people, but if your this close I might start hitting you I retreated. Siege cannons fired bombs which were hollow iron shells filled with gunpowder with a timed fuse, if it’s cut short it would explode on your heads, but if you left it it would fall and blow you up from below”

• The Number one tactic used in battle was Linear Warfare
• Linear Tactics is battling in rank and firing together
• Officers controled there ranks, and gave all commands on realoding and firing, usually the front row fires and starts to reaload while the back row fires over there soldiers
• Ranks were very effective
• If you had a rifle, or light weaponry, you might be sent in as a small infantry unit, to harass and scout out the enemy, but only for small scale units
• Linear tactics have been around for a while
• Ranks were sorted by hieght
• Cannons were used at 1000 yards to scare off the enemy
• Cannons at 300 yards were used with grape shots and canister shots which worked similar to a shotgun
• If the other army was that close you would start retreating
• Seige cannons were loaded with bombs
• The fuse on the bomb could be cut short to blow up over the enemies heads

I think linear tactics are smart because it uses the most of each musket. Muskets are very in acurate, so one soldier firing one gun is likely to miss, but 20 soldiers firing at once will likely hit someone. I can infer that linear tactics could backfire, because if a bomb explodes right in the middle of a rank, that rank is destroyed. One of the reasons the revolutionary war wasn’t fought the way we fought today, was because the mass of each army for example if there are two armies that have 1000 people in each, most of them won’t find cover so ranks is the next best thing. I think that the cannons are being used very effectively because the cannons are long ranged weapons so the british and continental army were both very efficient with the cannons. Personally I think that being in an infantry unit is way better because it is unlikelly that I would be killed. I think that the cannons could have been used better in the front instead of behind the ranks. How often were ranks broken? How many Infantry units were there? Where exactly would the cannons be? How heavy are cannons?

 

Cole
2015

Life of a Yorktown Soldier
Source: Colonial Soldier, Interpreter at Yorktown. Interview. Yorktown: n.p., 2015.
Print.

“You would never get enough food, you were always hungry and you get a very brief bite from the one meal a day that you do get. You were always uncomfortable.”

• Soldiers had a very hard life
• You would not get a lot to eat
• You were always uncomfortable
• You were not well taken care of
• You were upset by how poorly you were treated
• People had to live with 5 other men in a cramped tent
• There were snakes and sometimes rats in the tents

My Ideas: If I were a soldier I would be upset too. I can’t believe how poorly they were treated for fighting for their country. People must have gotten really upset by this at some points. I wonder if people were ever so upset by this to rebel? I can connect to the soldiers not being treated well, just like the militiamen having to pay for all materials and equipment. I can infer that some soldiers must have been distraught and brought up this problem with the high officials. Why would some soldiers not do something about this? If they were going into battle how are they supposed to have enough energy and stamina to fight? How are they supposed to win if they are only being fed once a day? This is wrong and it must have been really hard to be a soldier back then. Fighting day and night and always being hungry and always being uncomfortable is not a way to live. How could soldiers share a tent with 4 other men? It must have been really rough and hard. What would happen if something went wrong in your tent. This probably happened because of lack of funding. With the British always taxing you, the Army could not be able to afford nice things and be able to make the Army better. With the British taxing the colonist so badly they stopped paying which started the revolution. When the Colonists stopped paying the British they no longer funded them which is why it was so hard to live in a Army encampment back then. If you were sick or injured you would be sent to the medic who would most likely make your condition worse. Would you want to be a soldier back then?

Aidhan
2015:

“Warriors on both sides went too far. The massacres were horrible. At first the Indian leaders tried to live in peace with the settlers. But some of them realized that it would not work, that it would be the end of Indian ways. The Europeans used up land. They cut the forests and filled the land with people. Indians were hunters. To keep their way in life, the woods had to be protected.”

“One Virginian Governor said “Either we must clear the Indians out of the country, or they must clear us out.”

Paraphrase:

-Warriors on the English and the Indians took fighting against each other too far

-Indian leaders tried to live in peace with the English settlers

-They realized that they would die if they tried to live in peace with the English

-English took up land and filled it with people

-The English used Indians as hunters

-A governor said that the English will kill all the Indians, so the Indians will have to try and fight back

My Ideas:

The English and the Indians sometimes got along, but most of the time not. At first, when the English came to America, the Indian leaders wanted to try and be peaceful with the newcomers. But things started to go wrong. Whenever the English and the Indians tried to trade, one Indian would either get kidnapped or killed. The Indians sometimes retaliated right away, or they would show remarkable patience. Sometimes the Indians would just wait for their chance to attack. As little time went on, the Indian leaders realized that That means that they thought that the Indians would no longer exist if they tried to be friendly with the English. The English made themselves at home. They took land, they cut down forests where people and wild animals were living. Once the Indians tried to talk to the English about what they were doing, but one Virginian governor said that either the English had to kill all Indians and then make them leave, or the Indians would have to do that to the English.

 

Milei

2016

“Most African Americans who fought in the war took the British side, but hundreds also fought for the patriots. Some were free blacks who believed strongly in the cause of liberty. Others were slaves who were promised their freedom for taking part in the war. Some slaves were placed in the army as substitutes for their owners, who did not wish to serve themselves. In 1778, there were nearly a thousand black men spread across every regiment of the continental army. Black regiments with white officers existed in both Rhode Island and Massachusetts.”

• In war African Americans fought for the British side but lot’s of them also took the patriot side.
• Some African Americans would fight in their owners place
• Almost a thousand black men joined every army across the continent in 1778
• Some slaves were told by their owners that if they joined the war they would be freed

African Americans would usually fight in the army substituting for their owners or they would fight because they believed strongly in liberty. I wonder if the African Americans were treated any different in the army. For example everyone in the army got very low portions of food so would the African Americans get even less? I also wonder if living in the army as an African American was any better then living as a slave. Since when living as a slave you have to serve and work for someone else, but in the army you sort of get a little independence but still have to fight. Also since some African Americans were promised for their freedom if they joined the war, I wonder how many of them joined the war. I can infer that maybe their was a lot or a fair amount of them because if they were promised their freedom after the war then maybe more African Americans would be part of it. But I also wonder if any of the African Americans who were not promised their freedom, tried to escape during the war as a soldier because it maybe could have been a pretty good chance of escaping while everyone was distracted fighting.

 

Oliver Eig

December 15th 2016

 

Oliver – Magazine Information

Source:

Williamsburg, VA, Historical Interpreter. Interview. 20 Oct. 2016.

Quote:

“Take that idea of standardization and throw it out the window.”

 

“You have a huge hodgepodge of weapons going on here.”

Paraphrase:

The militia is an armed institution that every person that is free, landowning, able bodied, and above the age of 16 and under the age of 60. If you are all those things you have to be part of the militia by law. The militia is essentially a bunch of civilians with guns.

 

The government requires you to have a weapon if you are in the militia. The most common job in Virginia is farming so a lot of people would get a gun that they could use to kill animals on their land. This gun would most likely be a rifle. There is no way to use this as a close quarters weapon.

 

That is why there were military muskets, which you could spear people with the bayonet. It is standardized so everybody can switch out parts without having to worry about compatibility. This also made switching ammo a lot easier. That is what differentiates the militia from the military equipment wise.

 

The bad part of having a short barrel is because of the inaccuracy and that it would not be as effective to spear people with.

 

Almost all of the weapons in the European armies are pretty much the same and work the same way. This makes it so there was never really a weapons advantage between militaries.

 

The flintlocks in Jamestown were very unreliable, so the matchlock mechanism was a lot more popular The flintlocks in the end of the 17th century was when they started to become reliable and more popular. The flintlock was a lot easier to load and was more safe than the matchlock which had a burning piece of rope  that could blow them up.

 

“Take that idea of standardization and throw it out the window.”

 

Everybody was using different weapons.

Some were using English muskets some were using French muskets some were using shotguns.

From home and some people were using Dutch guns.

 

“You have a huge hodgepodge of weapons going on here.”

The next big leap in firearm technology will be the percussion cap which is a tiny little copper cap that is put over a tube that gets hit by a hammer. It is filled with mercury so when the mercury gets crushed it is always gonna spark.

My Ideas:

The Americans had a magazine in Williamsburg because they needed a place to store gunpowder and weapons. The way the historical interpreter talked about everything made it seem like the Americans were desperate, probably because they are aware that they are small and that Natives might attack them, or that another country might attack them, assuming that this is before the Revolutionary War. All of this information is important because it is talking about all of the different types of weapons and their best uses in the Revolutionary War, in which without the Americans having weapons we would have lost. I wonder why the Americans had a militia and a military? I infer that this is because they did not have a big enough military to post throughout the colonies, so they would station their military troops in important areas and have each colony have their own untrained militia. I understand that most people during this time were farmers but what if someone wasn’t a farmer? How would they choose what weapon to get then? I am also confused about why they had bayonets on their muskets if they could just slash them with their swords. Were there any soldiers that had rifles if they were mostly engaging at long range? Or did they all just have muskets in uniform. I think that it is really cool that all of the guns in the European armies were the same, but what about the swords? Were there any trends in European swords? Or did they all have a different style to them? What was the breaking point in the end of the 17th century that made it so flintlocks were more popular than matchlocks? I think that it is so neat how guns evolved in the span of 200 years, this makes me think about how our guns will look like in 200 years. Maybe we will all have laser guns? Who knows?

History:

Created: 10/24/2016 09:42 AM